Posted on Jul 20, 2015
Marriage is a choice. How is the recognition of it with increased allowances not a blatant form of discrimination against singles?
10.4K
41
40
7
7
0
There is a great disparity in benefits, allowances, opportunities, and direct compensation between equal members of the same rank, grade, and time in service differentiated simply over whether they are married or not. This runs to the tune of thousands of dollars of difference over the course of a career.
How does this not directly reflect a disproportionate inequality that runs counter to military values of uniformity, fairness, that effects unit cohesion and the sanctity of the act of marriage itself? As an example, a sham marriage or false marriage, is more beneficial per service member for the sake of compensation alone. Especially since the revocation of DADT, as well as the removal of section 3 of DOMA, and now with the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing same sex marriages to be conducted throughout the country, anyone can get married for any reason. Yet those who simply don’t believe in marriage or chose not to get married (say it’s against their religious beliefs), they don’t rate equal compensation or opportunities - how is this all not an Equal Opportunity violation?
Per example, in the Marine Corp’s Equal Opportunity directive MCO 5354.1D, it states, 'Unlawful discriminatory practices within the Marine Corps are counterproductive and unacceptable. Discrimination undermines morale, reduces combat readiness, and prevents maximum utilization and development of the Marine Corps’ most vital asset, its “people”. The policy of the Marine Corps is to provide equality of treatment and the opportunity for all Marines to achieve their full potential based solely upon individual merit, fitness, and ability.’
How is this not a clear form of discrimination taking place?
How does this not directly reflect a disproportionate inequality that runs counter to military values of uniformity, fairness, that effects unit cohesion and the sanctity of the act of marriage itself? As an example, a sham marriage or false marriage, is more beneficial per service member for the sake of compensation alone. Especially since the revocation of DADT, as well as the removal of section 3 of DOMA, and now with the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing same sex marriages to be conducted throughout the country, anyone can get married for any reason. Yet those who simply don’t believe in marriage or chose not to get married (say it’s against their religious beliefs), they don’t rate equal compensation or opportunities - how is this all not an Equal Opportunity violation?
Per example, in the Marine Corp’s Equal Opportunity directive MCO 5354.1D, it states, 'Unlawful discriminatory practices within the Marine Corps are counterproductive and unacceptable. Discrimination undermines morale, reduces combat readiness, and prevents maximum utilization and development of the Marine Corps’ most vital asset, its “people”. The policy of the Marine Corps is to provide equality of treatment and the opportunity for all Marines to achieve their full potential based solely upon individual merit, fitness, and ability.’
How is this not a clear form of discrimination taking place?
BAH
Discrimination
Marriage
Benefits
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
1
1
0
Depends upon your viewpoint. There is certainly an apparent financial inequity, if that's what your looking for. The argument is presumably solved by saying the increased allotment is for the spouse, more if there are children. Logically speaking, that stands to reason. I was single the greater part of my career. I missed out on all sorts of financial bennies and perks by not being married. However, and this is at least one way of looking at the disparity, I also had certain perks and financial bennies by NOT being married. Eventually, the former lifestyle won out, but I can't say that I chose it because I was going to get a higher per diem. I am certain that thought was the furthest from my mind when I was proposing!!!
(1)
(0)
1stLt (Join to see)
"The argument is presumably solved by saying the increased allotment is for the spouse,"
- Right here, why is it that the spouse is entitled to benefits through the husband (or wife), when they perfectly well can go out and support themselves? Your argument would make sense if they were disabled, or in the case of children particularly; however, a perfectly healthy spouse, not outright providing a defined service to the nation, getting benefits by association through a service member? How does that stand to reason?
- Right here, why is it that the spouse is entitled to benefits through the husband (or wife), when they perfectly well can go out and support themselves? Your argument would make sense if they were disabled, or in the case of children particularly; however, a perfectly healthy spouse, not outright providing a defined service to the nation, getting benefits by association through a service member? How does that stand to reason?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
It is discrimination but the service has broad latitude for good order and discipline.
Think about it. Most enlistees are 18 years old with zero experience as to how to take care of themselves when they have a steady paycheck. If you want to see an example of this, check out the rides with wheels and stereos.
Most are not cognizant of the requirements of paying bills and even less so of the consequences of paying the Xbox live bill vs. the power bill. To prevent issues of Joes/Janes being kicked out of their house or having the water cut off, they put them in the barracks.
It is not a perfect solution nor is it fair but it prevents a lot of off-post/camp/station issues.
Think about it. Most enlistees are 18 years old with zero experience as to how to take care of themselves when they have a steady paycheck. If you want to see an example of this, check out the rides with wheels and stereos.
Most are not cognizant of the requirements of paying bills and even less so of the consequences of paying the Xbox live bill vs. the power bill. To prevent issues of Joes/Janes being kicked out of their house or having the water cut off, they put them in the barracks.
It is not a perfect solution nor is it fair but it prevents a lot of off-post/camp/station issues.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
What about a married 18 year old? Chances are their maturity level isn't much different, and they aren't required to live in the barracks. Maturity doesn't come with marriage.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
I didn't say it was right but that is the mentality of our leadership. That's why we have all that mandatory training that is supposed to reduce or eliminate the problems in our society.
The deal is that they give married troops more money and more options. They have the option to get roommates to mitigate costs, choose to live in a trailer (i knew a guy living in a pop up trailer on a $15/month lot), or live with mom and dad.
The deal is that they give married troops more money and more options. They have the option to get roommates to mitigate costs, choose to live in a trailer (i knew a guy living in a pop up trailer on a $15/month lot), or live with mom and dad.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
For the simple fact that the military is required to care, not only for the soldier, but for their dependants as well. How can I support a family on 1000 a month? It just wont happen. So the Army allots money for housing and food extra. That's it. There is no actual pay bonus for getting married. And they really only give you JUST ENOUGH to get by unless you are a REALLY savvy financial planner..
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Servicemember who are married and/or have children are responsible for them, whereas a single Servicemember is responsible only for himself.
(0)
(0)
1stLt (Join to see)
So you believe the government is responsible for your spouse (a perfectly capable provider for him/herself) and that you're entitled to live with them in private housing because you decided to get married, and they owe you all of this? Why shouldn't you live in the barracks with your single peers? They have girlfriends and boyfriends, why aren't they allowed to live with them? How come, kids aside, marriage gives you the right to be different?
(Note: I'm not trying to attack your personal views here, I believe in a strong support system as well, I just want a hypothetical response as to what your viewpoint on this would be)
(Note: I'm not trying to attack your personal views here, I believe in a strong support system as well, I just want a hypothetical response as to what your viewpoint on this would be)
(1)
(0)
SGT Christopher Churilla
No sir, I do not believe the government is responsible to take care of a family, it is the responsibility of the Servicemember. But that is a responsibility of ANYONE with a family, regardless of who they work for.
As for living accommodations, married Servicemembers should be allowed to live with their families. To force them to live in the barracks with other Servicemembers can lead to a breakdown in the family dynamic. With today's technology, deployed Servicemembers can communicate instantly with their families back home, but it cannot replace an actual physical presence; they miss anniversaries, birthdays, graduations and all other sorts of special events in their families' lives, and that takes a toll on them and their families. To force them to live apart from their families will lead to decreased morale and fewer people re-enlisting, which then reduces the number of otherwise quality leaders our new recruits need.
As for living accommodations, married Servicemembers should be allowed to live with their families. To force them to live in the barracks with other Servicemembers can lead to a breakdown in the family dynamic. With today's technology, deployed Servicemembers can communicate instantly with their families back home, but it cannot replace an actual physical presence; they miss anniversaries, birthdays, graduations and all other sorts of special events in their families' lives, and that takes a toll on them and their families. To force them to live apart from their families will lead to decreased morale and fewer people re-enlisting, which then reduces the number of otherwise quality leaders our new recruits need.
(1)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
No, a servicemember who is married is jointly responsible for their family with their spouse. If they have no children, they are jointly responsible for each other.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It all comes down to the type of pay that differs. Your base pay reflects your rank and responsibilities. Changing this based on your number of dependents would absolutely be discrimination. But, that isn't what changes. The allowance for housing is what is adjusted, and only by a few hundred dollars a month, depending on rank. It is reasonable to say that a bachelor does not need as much space as a service member with a wife and two children. BAH is designed to keep you in a house equivalent to what your peers could expect in the civilian community. Contrary to your statement, it would seem to be discrimination if the DOD expected a man with 5 children and a wife to occupy the same space that a 22 year old bachelor occupies. (Although, BAH is either "with" or "without" dependents. So, 5 kids are expected to fit in the same space as 1 wife!) Again, you cannot count this as pay and compensation similar to base pay. It is an allowance to offset the differences between military members and the community they live in.
For the sake of argument, do you also disagree with incentive pay? For example, I chose my career field when I was enlisted. I could've chosen to self eliminate. But, I received incentive flight pay every month for the inherent risks associated with flying. Is this discrimination simply because it is a choice I made? Does the same go for jump pay and other forms of career specific compensation? What about reenlistment/retention bonuses? Is that discrimination against those who are in career fields that have decent manning numbers?
For the sake of argument, do you also disagree with incentive pay? For example, I chose my career field when I was enlisted. I could've chosen to self eliminate. But, I received incentive flight pay every month for the inherent risks associated with flying. Is this discrimination simply because it is a choice I made? Does the same go for jump pay and other forms of career specific compensation? What about reenlistment/retention bonuses? Is that discrimination against those who are in career fields that have decent manning numbers?
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I understand what you're saying. And I can show you many civilians who actually live that way, especially college students. The key word in my statement was "designed" in reference to BAH. Each branch's regulations on who is allowed to live off base and must stay on base is a different issue. I was referring to those who receive their BAH and pay rent or a mortgage in the local community, and how the allowance is in relation to that.
Again, I don't disagree with you. However, the way the system works in practice and the way the allowance was designed to compensate military members are two separate issues.
Again, I don't disagree with you. However, the way the system works in practice and the way the allowance was designed to compensate military members are two separate issues.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google